McMaster Studies
 

I'm not sure if maybe I'm missing something here but many people on this site rip on CrossFit, and rightly so, but one thing I noticed is that one particular CrossFit belief they have a hard time with is that sprinting can develop aerobic and endurance capacity almost equally as well as endurance training. Did the McMaster studies by Gibala not show that the HIT group got the same results as the steady state group? I read the study and that is how I understood it. So why does everyone continue to recommend steady state training for aerobic endurance when it seems to me that it has been shown that HIT gives the same results? I'm not an exercise scientist so maybe I'm missing something.

Also:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0627140103.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0604101529.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0706113749.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0405194101.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1111122026.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0127190344.htm
So if all these studies keep showing that HIT is better or equally as good as steady state work for fitness, cardiovascular health, etc. why do exercise science bodies keep recommending steady state?

Because interval adaptions don't progress much past about 6-8 weeks whereas steady state keeps seeing improvements in ability.

You can add interval work on top of the steady state work fairly well, but it doesn't work so much the other way around.

For example, strength confers a lot to endurance but working endurance doesn't confer a lot to strength. When using a particular endurance activity in long duration, you build with endurance volume then add high intensity on top of it.

This is especially true where neuromuscular improvements in running economy occur with extremely high repetitions of movement (hence massive volume of running performed by 5000m+ endurance athletes, etc.), and musculoskeletal CVD adaptations including lactate processing and mitochondria, etc.

Lyle has a really long series (10+ articles) on his site where he talks about Intervals vs. Steady State.

Similar results in terms of burning fat and keeping the heart healthy -- sure.

But in terms of endurance performance, there are many valuable things that happen with the body during longer endurance training that cannot be replicated but going shorter and faster.

Some advantages of longer slow running that can't be obtained as well with intervals or tempo runs:

• ventricular hypertrophy
• form improvement (whether it's running, swimming, rowing, whatever)
• neurological improvement (basically what Steven said)
• adaptation and practice regarding nutrition, hydration, etc. Dealing with glycogen depletion and allowing the body to store more glycogen.
• fat oxidation adaptation
• optimal pacing and strategy
  

Some reasons why hard intervals may not be advised for the purposes of fat burning/general aerobic health:

• more taxing neurologically therefore making recovery more difficult
• easier to strain or tear a muscle when going fast/all-out then when going slow

Thanks for helping me get a better grasp on that. Lyle's articles helped a lot.

can I ask for a link for this one? tnx
D

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/cat...raining/page/6

Start with the first article. The series isn't very organized. Some of the articles in the series are under other categories, if I remember correctly. At the end of every article, there should be a link though to the next article in the series.

Lyle also has a very long series on Methods of Endurance Training, if that interests you as well.

ok, tnx a lot, I actually did come across that series of articles, but didn't know that was Lyle you guys were talking about.

interesting read.
D